Yes, Australia is definitely a Nanny state... So many examples - particularly in technology.
High Speed Trains - we have 200kmh capable XPT trains. Not allowed to run them at their designed speed. Only run at 80-90kmh Uranium. Allowed to dig it up. Not allowed to use it in a pressure cooker or use it in any commercial lab. Solar Power - allowed to research it. Not allowed to commercialise it. Military - allowed to give 'Freedom' to outlying Islands (Timor) but does not allow Australians to go there and economically develop it. After giving 'freedom' other Governments.. like China.. Indonesia move in and setup commercial outposts where we did the clearing. Technology - a lot of Australians in Tech are bullied and told to get on a plane and leave the country if they have an idea and want to pursue it... Last technology example... Try find any of the great Australian Technology developed by Australians in an Australian Museum in Canberra or Sydney - it's not there. Nanny says No to recognising things like the Spectrum Analysers, Ear Implants, Combine Harverster, Puppy Linux, Solar Boats, Black Box Flight Recorders, Suntek Solar Cells or anything else done by innovative Australians... None of that gets into Australian Museums... 2011/6/29 david <[email protected]> > > > Marghanita da Cruz wrote: > >> From time to time, SLUG, gets into philosophical debates, in relation to >> Internet Filtering and Free/Open Source Software. >> >> I found this parliamentary briefing interesting and thought others may >> too. >> Note its focus is tobacco and gambling - so the principles may or may not >> apply. >> >> JUNE 16, 2011 >>> >>> The 'nanny state' and freedom of choice >>> >>> In recent times, a number of Australian Government policy initiatives >>> have been criticised as 'nanny state' or 'paternalist' policies. >>> >> <http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/**parlInfo/search/display/** >> display.w3p;query=Id%3A%**22library%2Fprspub%2F875642%22<http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22library%2Fprspub%2F875642%22> >> **> >> > > > What is "nanny" and what is "justifiable" is utterly a POV issue. > > <example> > Some years ago in NSW, children of Jehovah's Witnesses were denied blood > transfusions by their parents because of religious beliefs. The state > introduced legislation and stepped in to make such children wards of the > state if their lives were at risk. > > What right has the state to deny to a child eternity in the presence of the > Lord for the sake of a few years of earthly life? > </example> > > Mostly whoever is in charge tries to impose their belief system and make it > the current paradigm - whether it's religious, commercial, political or > philosophical. I can't say I can see much logic going on, unless it's a kind > of stumbling, long-term Darwinian logic. > > -- > SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ > Subscription info and FAQs: > http://slug.org.au/faq/**mailinglists.html<http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html> > -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
